Here is something you will never see in the mainstream news. During the 1918 Spanish Flu, which is considered to be the most contagious “virus” of all time, researchers for the Public Health Service and the U.S. Navy tried to determine what caused the flu and how infectious it truly was. However, the results of their experiments proved that the flu is not infectious at all. Here is a brief overview of what took place during the studies:
The State of Science, Microbiology, and Vaccines Circa 1918
“Perhaps the most interesting epidemiological studies conducted during the 1918–1919 pandemic were the human experiments conducted by the Public Health Service and the U.S. Navy under the supervision of Milton Rosenau on Gallops Island, the quarantine station in Boston Harbor, and on Angel Island, its counterpart in San Francisco. The experiment began with 100 volunteers from the Navy who had no history of influenza. Rosenau was the first to report on the experiments conducted at Gallops Island in November and December 1918.69 His first volunteers received first one strain and then several strains of Pfeiffer’s bacillus by spray and swab into their noses and throats and then into their eyes. When that procedure failed to produce disease, others were inoculated with mixtures of other organisms isolated from the throats and noses of influenza patients. Next, some volunteers received injections of blood from influenza patients. Finally, 13 of the volunteers were taken into an influenza ward and exposed to 10 influenza patients each. Each volunteer was to shake hands with each patient, to talk with him at close range, and to permit him to cough directly into his face. None of the volunteers in these experiments developed influenza. Rosenau was clearly puzzled, and he cautioned against drawing conclusions from negative results. He ended his article in JAMA with a telling acknowledgement: “We entered the outbreak with a notion that we knew the cause of the disease, and were quite sure we knew how it was transmitted from person to person. Perhaps, if we have learned anything, it is that we are not quite sure what we know about the disease.”69 (p. 313)
The research conducted at Angel Island and that continued in early 1919 in Boston broadened this research by inoculating with the Mathers streptococcus and by including a search for filter-passing agents, but it produced similar negative results.70–72 It seemed that what was acknowledged to be one of the most contagious of communicable diseases could not be transferred under experimental conditions.“
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2862332/#!po=60.7527
The studies at Gallops and Angel Island, taking place on separate coasts at different times, showed that no matter how hard the researchers tried, they could not transmit the “deadly” Spanish flu from sick to healthy humans. They worked very hard to infect the volunteers in numerous ways and attempted to account for any factors which may have potentially interfered with transmission. Alas, they were entirely unsuccessful in transmitting the “virus” in every single case.
For a more in depth look at what occurred on Gallops Island, I have provided Milton Rosenau’s full report with a summary at the end:
EXPERIMENTS TO DETERMINE MODE OF SPREAD OF INFLUENZA MILTON J. ROSENAU, M.D. BOSTON
“The experiments here described were performed on an island in Boston Harbor, on volunteers obtained from the Navy. The work was conducted by a group of officers detailed for that purpose, from the U. S. Navy and the U. S. Public Health Service, consisting of Dr. G. W. McCoy, director of the Hygienic Library, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, Dr. Leake, and Dr. Lake, all on the part of the U. S. Public Health Service; and cooperating with those medical officers, was a group also detailed for this purpose on the part of the U. S. Navy, consisting of Dr. J. J. Keegan, Dr. De Wayne Richey and myself.
The work itself was conducted at Gallops Island, which is the quarantine station of the Port of Boston, and peculiarly well fitted for operations of this kind, serving adequately for the purposes of isolation, observations, and maintenance of the large group of
volunteers and personnel necessary to take care of them.
The volunteers were all of the most susceptible age, mostly between 18 and 25, only a few of them around 30 years old; and all were in good physical condition. None of these volunteers, 100 all told in number, had “influenza;” that is, from the most careful histories that we could elicit, they gave no account of a febrile attack of any kind during the winter, except a few who were purposely selected, as having shown a typical attack of influenza, in order to test questions of immunity, and for the purpose of control.
Now, we proceeded rather cautiously at first by administering a pure culture of bacillus of influenza, Pfeiffer’s bacillus, in a rather moderate amount, into the nostrils of a few of these volunteers. These early experiments I will not stop to relate, but I will go at once to what I may call our Experiment 1.
EXPERIMENTS AT GALLOPS ISLAND
As the preliminary trials proved negative, we became bolder, and selecting nineteen of our volunteers, gave each one of them a very large quantity of a mixture of thirteen different strains of the Pfeiffer bacillus, some of them obtained recently from the lungs at necropsy; others were subcultures of varying age, and each of the thirteen had, of course, a different history. Suspensions of these organisms were sprayed with an atomizer into the nose and into the eyes, and back into the throat, while the volunteers were breathing in. We used some billions of these organisms, according to our estimated counts, on each one of the volunteers, but none of them took sick.
Then we proceeded to transfer the virus obtained from cases of the disease; that is, we collected the material and mucous secretions of the mouth and nose and throat and bronchi from cases of the disease and transferred this to our volunteers. We always obtained this material in the same way: The patient with fever, in bed, has a large, shallow, traylike arrangement before him or her, and we washed out one nostril with some sterile salt solution, using perhaps 5 ce., which is allowed to run into this tray; and that nostril is blown vigorously into the tray. This is repeated with the other nostril. The patient then gargles with some of the solution. Next we obtain some bronchial mucus through coughing, and then we swab the mucous surface of each nares and also the mucous membrane of the throat. We place these swabs with the material in a bottle with glass beads, and add all the material obtained in the tray. This is the stuff we transfer to our volunteers. In this particular experiment, in which we used ten volunteers, each of them received a comparatively small quantity of this, about 1 c.c. sprayed into each nostril and into the throat, while inspiring, and on the eye. None of these took sick. Some of the same material was filtered and instilled into other volunteers but produced no results.
Now, I may mention at this point that the donors were all patients with influenza iti Boston hospitals; sometimes at the U. S. Naval Hospital at Chelsea, sometimes at the Peter Bent Brigham Hospital, where we had access to suitable cases. We always kept in mind the fact that we have no criterion of influenza; therefore I would like to emphasize the fact that we never took an isolated case of fever, but selected our donors from a distinct focus or outbreak of the disease, sometimes an epidemic in a school with 100 cases, from which we would select four or five typical cases, in order to prevent mistakes in diagnosis of influenza.
Now, thinking that perhaps the failure to reproduce the disease in the experiments that I have described was due to the fact that we obtained the material in the hospitals in Boston, and then took it down the bay to Gallops Island, which sometimes required four
hours before our volunteers received the material, and believing that the virus was perhaps very frail, and could not stand this exposure, we planned another experiment, in which we obtained a large amount of material, and by special arrangements, rushed it down to Gallops Island; so that the interval between taking the material from the donors and giving it to our volunteers was only one hour and forty minutes, all told. Each one of these volunteers in this experiment, ten in number, received 6 c.c. of the mixed stuff that I have described. They received it into each nostril; received it in the throat, and on the eye; and when you think that 6 c.c. in all was used, you will understand that some of it was swallowed. None of them took sick.
Then, thinking perhaps it was not only the time that was causing our failures, but also the salt solution—for it is possible that the salt solution might be inimical to the virus—-we planned another experiment to eliminate both the time factor and the salt solution, and all other outside influences. In this experiment we had little cotton swabs on the end of sticks, and we transferred the material directly from nose to nose and from throat to throat, using a West tube for the throat culture, so as to get the material not only from the tonsils, but also from the posterior nasopharynx.
We used nineteen volunteers for this experiment, and it was during the time of the outbreak, when we had a choice of many donors. A few of the donors were in the first day of the disease. Others were in the second or third day of the disease. None of these volunteers who received the material thus directly transferred from cases took sick in any way. When I say none of them took sick in any way, I mean that after receiving the material they were then isolated on Gallops Island. Their temperature was taken three times a day and carefully examined, of course, and under constant medical supervision they were held for one full week before they were released, and perhaps used again for some other experiment. All of the volunteers received at least two, and some of them three “shots” as they expressed it.
Our next experiment consisted in injections of blood. We took five donors, five cases of influenza in the febrile stage, some of them again quite early in the disease. We drew 20 ‘c.c. from the arm vein of each, making a total of 100 c.c, which was mixed and treated with 1 per cent, of sodium citrate. Ten c.c. of the citrated whole blood were injected into each of the ten volunteers. None of them took sick in any way. Then we collected a lot of mucous material from the upper respiratory tract, and filtered it through Mandler filters. While these filters will hold back the bacteria of ordinary size, they will allow “ultramicroscopic” organisms to pass. This filtrate was injected into ten volunteers, each one receiving 3.5 c.c. subcutaneously, and none of these took sick in any way.
The next experiment was designed to imitate the natural way in which influenza spreads, at least the way in which we believe influenza spreads, and I have no doubt it does—by human contact. This experiment consisted in bringing ten of our volunteers from Gallops Island to the U.S. Naval Hospital at Chelsea, into a ward having thirty beds, all filled with influenza.
We had previously selected ten of these patients to be the donors; and now, if you will follow me with one of our volunteers in this ward, and remember that the other nine were at the same time doing the same thing, we shall have a picture of just what was happening in this experiment:
The volunteer was led up to the bedside of the patient; he was introduced. He sat down alongside the bed of the patient. They shook hands, and. by instructions, he got as close as he conveniently could, and they talked· for live minutes. At the end of the five minutes, the patient breathed out as hard as he could, while the volunteer, muzzle to muzzle (in accordance with his instructions, about 2 inches between the two), received this expired -breath, and at the same time was breathing in as the patient breathed out. This they repeated five times, and they did it fairly faithfully in almost all of the instances.
After they had done this for five times, the patient coughed directly into the face of the volunteer, face to face, five différent times.
I may say that the volunteers were perfectly splendid about carrying out the technic of these experiments. They did it with a high idealism. They were inspired with the thought that they might help others. They went through the program in a splendid spirit. After our volunteer had had this sort of contact with the patient, talking and chatting and shaking hands with him for five minutes, and receiving his breath five times, and then his cough five times directly in his face, he moved to the next patient whom we had selected, and repeated this, and so on, until this volunteer had had that sort of contact with ten different cases of influenza, in different stages of the disease, mostly fresh cases, none of them more than three days old.
We will remember that each one of the ten volunteers had that sort of intimate contact with each one of the ten different influenza patients. They were watched carefully for seven days—and none of them took sick in any way.
EXPERIMENTS AT PORTSMOUTH
At that point, the holidays came, our material was exhausted, and we temporarily suspended our work. In fact, we felt rather surprised and somewhat perplexed, and were not sure as to the next way to turn, and we felt it would be better to take a little breathing spell and a rest.
We started another set of experiments in February that lasted into March, again using fifty volunteers carefully selected from the Deer Island Naval Training Station. These experiments I will not give in detail. They would take too long. They were simply designed and the program was carefully planned, but the way matters turned out became very confusing and perplexing. I will give two instances to explain what I mean by that; and I give them because they are exceedingly instructive and very interesting.
In February and March, the epidemic was on the wane. We had difficulty in finding donors. We were not sure of our diagnosis, having no criterion of influenza. We therefore felt very fortunate when we learned of an outbreak that was taking place at the
Portsmouth Naval Prison, only a few hours north of Boston. We at once loaded a couple of automobiles filled with our volunteers, and rushed up to Portsmouth, and there repeated many things that I have described in our first set of experiments. At Portsmouth, typical cases for donors, and transferring the material directly to our volunteers. In about thirty-six hours, half of the number we exposed came down with fever and sore throat, with hemolytic streptococci present, and doubtless as the causal agent. All the clinicians who saw these cases in consultation agreed with us that they were ordinary cases of sore throat.
Another incident : One of our officers, Dr. L., who had been in intimate contact with the disease from
early in October, collected material from six healthy men at the Portsmouth Navy Yard who were thought might be in the period of incubation of the disease—we were trying to get material as early as possible, because all the evidence seems to indicate that the infection is transmittable early in the disease. None of the six men came down with influenza, but Dr. L. came down in thirty-six hours, with a clinical attack of influenza, although he had escaped all the rest of the outbreak.
CONCLUSION
I think we must be very careful not to draw any positive conclusions from negative results of this kind. Many factors must be considered. Our volunteers may not have been susceptible. They may have been immune. They had been exposed as all the rest of the people had been exposed to the disease, although they gave no clinical history of an attack.
Dr. McCoy, who with Dr. Richey, did a similar series of experiments on Goat Island, San Francisco, used volunteers who, so far as known, had not been exposed to the outbreak at all, also had negative results, that is, they were unable to reproduce the disease. Perhaps there are factors, or a factor, in the transmission of influenza that we do not know.
As a matter of fact, we entered the outbreak with a notion that we knew the cause of the disease, and were quite sure we knew how it was transmitted from person to person. Perhaps, if we have learned anything, it is that we are not quite sure what we know about the disease.“
https://zenodo.org/record/1505669/files/article.pdf?download=1
In Summary:
- None of these volunteers, 100 in all, had “influenza;” except for a few who were purposely selected in order to test questions of immunity, and for the purpose of control
- Preliminary experiments using a pure culture of Pfeiffer’s bacillus, in a rather moderate amount sprayed into the nostrils of a few of the volunteers, failed to produce results
- Nineteen of the volunteers were given a very large quantity of a mixture of thirteen different strains of the Pfeiffer bacillus
- Suspensions of these organisms were sprayed with an atomizer into the nose and into the eyes, and back into the throat, while the volunteers were breathing in
- According to their estimates, they used some billions of these organisms on each one of the volunteers, but none of them became sick
- They collected the material and mucous secretions of the mouth and nose and throat and bronchi from cases of the disease and transferred this to volunteers
- In this particular experiment with ten volunteers, each received a comparatively small quantity of mucus secretions, about 1 c.c. sprayed into each nostril and into the throat, while inspiring, and on the eye
- None of these 10 volunteers became sick and some of the same material was filtered and instilled into other volunteers but produced no results
- They had no criterion of influenza but selected donors from a distinct focus or outbreak of the disease, sometimes an epidemic in a school with 100 cases, from which they would select four or five typical cases in order to prevent mistakes in diagnosis of influenza
- Fearing that the 4 hour time from sample collection to use may have interfered with transmission, samples were collected and used within 1.5 hours
- Each one of the 10 volunteers in this experiment received 6 c.c. of the mixed stuff previously described
- They received it into each nostril; received it in the throat, and some of it was swallowed yet none of the volunteers became sick
- Fearing the salt solution in the mixture next, they eliminated it as a variable as well as all other outside influences
- In this next experiment they had little cotton swabs on the end of sticks, and transferred the material directly from nose to nose and from throat to throat, using a West tube for the throat culture, so as to get the material not only from the tonsils, but also from the posterior nasopharynx
- Nineteen volunteers were used and none became sick in any way
- When Rosenau says none became sick in any way, he carefully lays out that:
- After receiving the material, the volunteers were then isolated on Gallops Island
- Their temperature was taken three times a day and they were carefully examined
- They were under constant medical supervision and were held for one full week before they were released
- Some were used again for other experiments
- All of the volunteers received at least two, and some of them three “shots” as they expressed it
- The next experiment consisted of injections of blood
- They took five donors, five cases of influenza quite early in the disease, and drew 20 c.c. from the arm vein of each, making a total of 100 c.c, which was mixed and treated with 1 percent, of sodium citrate
- Ten c.c. of the citrated whole blood were injected into each of the ten volunteers and none of them became sick in any way
- Mucous material from the upper respiratory tract was collected and filtered
- This filtrate was injected into ten volunteers, each one receiving 3.5 c.c. subcutaneously, and none of the volunteers became sick in any way
- The next experiment was designed to imitate the natural way in which influenza spreads through human contact
- This was the process as described by Rosenau:
- The volunteer was led up to the bedside of the patient
- He was introduced and sat down alongside the bed of the patient
- They shook hands, and by instructions, he got as close as he conveniently could, and they talked for five minutes
- At the end of the five minutes, the patient breathed out as hard as he could, while the volunteer, muzzle to muzzle (in accordance with his instructions, about 2 inches between the two), received this expired breath, and at the same time was breathing in as the patient breathed out
- They repeated this five times, and they did it fairly faithfully in almost all of the instances
- After they had done this for five times, the patient coughed directly into the face of the volunteer, face to face, five différent times
- The volunteer then proceeded to 9 other patients in varying stages of illness and the process outlined above was repeated in its entirety with each one
- All ten volunteers who spent time with all ten patients were watched carefully for seven days—and none of them became sick in any way
- After undertaking the various experiments described above and the negative results obtained, Rosenau admits they felt rather surprised and somewhat perplexed, and was not sure as to the next way to turn
- In further experiments, after about thirty-six hours after inoculation, half of the number they exposed came down with fever and sore throat, with hemolytic streptococci present, which was considered doubtless as the causal agent
- All the clinicians who saw these cases in consultation agreed with the researchers that these were ordinary cases of sore throat
- One Dr., who collected material from 6 healthy men believed to be in the early stages of influenza, became ill with influenza himself while the 6 men remained healthy
- Dr. McCoy, who with Dr. Richey, did a similar series of experiments on Goat Island, San Francisco, used volunteers who had not been exposed to the outbreak at all and also had negative results and were unable to reproduce the disease
- Rosenau’s final conclusion:
- “As a matter of fact, we entered the outbreak with a notion that we knew the cause of the disease, and were quite sure we knew how it was transmitted from person to person. Perhaps, if we have learned anything, it is that we are not quite sure what we know about the disease.“
Rosenau’s experiments were just one of many that attempted and failed to transmit a “virus” to humans in both “natural” and experimental ways. As stated previously, further experiments were conducted on the West Coast on Angel Island, which also produced negative results. There are many other studies throughout the early 20th century that came to the same conclusions. One of these is detailed by this abstract coming from a study from 1921:
Influenza Studies III. Attempts to Cultivate Filtrable Viruses from Cases of Influenza and Common Colds
Sara E Branham, Ivan C Hall
The Journal of Infectious Diseases, 143-149, 1921
“These experiments offer no evidence in support of the theory that the cause of either common colds or influenza is a filtrable virus. In attempting to cultivate filtrable viruses from the nasopharyngeal secretions in colds and influenza, no bodies were found in the “cultures” which could not be found also in those from normal persons, in controls in all simple mediums examined, and on blank slides. It is recognized that negative experiments, limited to the attempted cultivation of a filtrable virus, and including no attempts to reproduce the disease in animals, do not offer conclusive evidence that such a virus is not involved. No conclusions can be drawn concerning influenza, on account of the few cases examined, together with the fact that samples of such were not collected during the earliest stages of the disease. However, the uniformly negative results obtained with a large and representative number of colds are not without significance.”
There is plenty of evidence against the myth of infectiousness. Researchers have repeatedly tried and failed to transmit invisible “viruses” from human-to-human. It is because of these early failed experiments negating the myth of human-to-human transmission of disease that these kinds of studies with human subjects were deemed unethical and were ultimately stopped. Instead, the evidence for “viruses” came from experimentally created disease through unnatural injections of ground up animal tissues mixed with toxic chemicals/additives into the brains, eyes, nose, throats, veins, etc. of other animals. Since virology could not show human-to-human transmission of disease, they decided to trick the gullible and the ignorant by creating experimental disease through the torture of animals. Obviously the much more “ethical” path.
ViroLIEgy 
My second “Ah ha!” moment back in early 2020 was reading about Rosenau’s experiment in the book, The Invisible Rainbow. I have referenced it many times. The first “Ah ha!” moment was seveeral weeks earlier when I read David Crowe’s paper on PCR. I knew then this truly was an infectious myth, it was all fraud.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yes, I remember hearing Dr. Cowan speak of this in his first video but I had never read about it. It took me a while to track it down info on the Gallops/Angel Island experiments back then, but when I did, it was mind-blowing to me. I updated the post this time to include the full paper which is the first time I actually read the whole thing. It’s even more mind-blowing to me now. 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have listened to many explain that a virus has never been isolated. It’s pretty easy to understand this. It’s equally easy to understand how EMF’s disrupt our bodies.
What has not been easy is connecting the dots. I want to understand how people get sick when exposed to a sick person. One example…. It happens all the time when I take care of sick grandbaies. Also, for example, if 5G amped up is causing flare ups of sickness (named covid), it seems like a whole neighborhood would be affected at the same time, or at least nearby neighbors. This has not been the case. Some close neighbors went through the sickness months after us. Then, not everyone in our household got sick. Maybe the ones who got sick all went to the same place within the same time frame, where 5G was stronger?? So if a family member did not go where I did, maybe they were not affected? Also, if it makes us sick, why does it not still continue to make us sick in a similar way?
I am so confused on those points. I have so many questions. Everything I read and books I have bought only explain the virus has never been isolated. I believe that. I have not found any answers to the questions above. I can anyone point me in the right direction?
LikeLike
There are numerous factors that influence whether someone gets sick or not. To me, the biggest factor in respiratory disease is air pollution which has seen levels rise greatly the last four years. PM2.5 exposure produces all of the same symptoms of disease as “Covid-19.” Now, while I believe air pollution is a huge factor, it is not the only factor. Toxic non-organic foods, fluoridated/chlorinated water, poisonous pharmaceuticals/vaccines, drugs/alchohol use, too much stress, lack of sleep/exercise, environmental radiation, etc. all play a role in acquiring disease. The problem occurs when people start looking for one cause. There is no one cause and cases/statistics are manipulated by faulty/inaccurate PCR tests. There is no new disease caused by one thing. It is the same symptoms of disease caused by numerous factors.
LikeLike
Thank you. I am aware of all the environmental toxins causing sickness. I’m struggling to understand that if sickness is only coming from within, why when I start to get a sore throat, can I gargle with silver or nebulize with peroxide, it then clears up. I haven’t cleared up the terrain of my fluids around and in cells, yet a topical treatment knocks it out. If I am not able to to do one of these, , I end up sick. If it’s not something infecting, then why will a household all get the same cold back to back or close to the same time if each persons terrain is different? Or I go to my grandbabies to take care of them and a few days later end up with the same cold. Or, at a day care most of the children break out with the same cold or symptoms (they all come from different homes, different environments, and have taken in different things into their bodies, so why do they all get the same thing at the same time). Or how does an antibiotic clear an infection when it’s just the cells sick from the terrain? I really want to understand but must be missing something because it is very confusing for me.
LikeLike
While antibiotics and other medications may clear up symptoms, they may not clear up any underlying issues causing disease. Many times, people take medications which may clear up their current illness but some time later they may come down with something worse. As for why people may get sick around the same time, most likely it is environmental. There are myths of Chickenpox and measles parties but I can not find solid information on them. I have found plenty of evidence showing it is difficult (if not impossible) to transfer chickenpox/shingles to humans and animals. I’ve heard a theory that when one person detoxes it may signal another person to go through a similar detox but again, I’ve seen no solid evidence for this, just theories. IMO, if people are all in the same place and come down with similar symptoms, it’s most likely food poisoning and/or environmental factors such as air pollution.
LikeLike
Read ‘The Contagion Myth’ by dr. Cowan. Also, German medicine has interesting information about why people get sick, this is a good place to start https://learninggnm.com/ — Click enter and on the site click on menu and read up about the 5 biological laws, dr. Hamer’s biography and ‘biological special programs’ which is where you may find an answer to the ‘contagion phenomenon’. Also check this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94HYKdtBKkc
and this one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94HYKdtBKkc
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am confident from personal experience that food is the primary factor in influenza. Excess sugar or grains will over time require detox. Since stopping such things a decade ago I’ve had no colds or flus at all; and whenever I do indulge for a couple of days at a time I start to feel that old, weight feeling of buildup wanting for a flu-like detox.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There is truth in the saying “we are what we eat.” 😉
LikeLike
Here in Finland, children used to be intentionally brought to visit households with measles-stricken children so that they would also catch the disease at a young age, as it is known that the disease has considerably greater risk of serious complications when caught as an adult. The results, evidently, corresponded to expectations.
Like one commentator here, I also find the alternative explanations for getting ill after interacting with sick individuals a bit wanting.
Let’s take rabies, for example. A human gets this disease, which has uniform and ultimately deadly symptoms, only after being bitten by (or otherwise exposed to the saliva of) an animal with the same disease. Following an infection, the individual dies unless he or she gets the rabies vaccination before the symptoms appear. This has, I think, been by now well established. It is attributed to a specific virus. Treatment known as the Milwaukee antiviral protocol has reportedly been saving about 14 percent of unvaccinated rabies patients since 2004.
Rabies has been eradicated from Finland. The same applies to e.g. the province of Phuket in Thailand, where volunteers of the Soy Dog Foundation have been systematically vaccinating stray dogs.
LikeLike
Like some commentators, I also find the alternative explanations for getting ill after interacting with sick individuals a bit wanting.
Let’s take rabies, for example. A human gets this disease, which has uniform and ultimately deadly symptoms, only after being bitten by (or otherwise exposed to the saliva of) an animal with the same disease. Following an infection, the individual dies unless he or she gets the rabies vaccination before the symptoms appear. This has, I think, been by now well established. It is attributed to a specific virus. Treatment known as the Milwaukee antiviral protocol has reportedly been saving about 14 percent of unvaccinated rabies patients since 2004.
Rabies has been eradicated from Finland. The same applies to e.g. the province of Phuket in Thailand, where volunteers of the Soy Dog Foundation have been systematically vaccinating stray dogs.
LikeLike
Hi Vesa, you may find this article by Brendan Murphy useful at dispelling the myth of rabies.
https://officialbrendanmurphy.substack.com/p/the-rabies-delusion-revealed
LikeLike
Also, since we know flus and poxes are good things, deliberate processes carried out by the body, it would be evolutionarily silly if we didn’t have a way to coordinate the timing of such cleanings. Just as we coordinate sleep times with yawning.
The reason the transmission experiments fail is it’s not the any “virus” but other mechanisms, from visual appearance to pheromones perhaps.
Such things are weighted, naturally, so if you spend 5 minutes getting coughed on by a sick person nothing happens, but if your mates or colleagues are laid up or smell sick and you hang around them and socialize with them and are thus keyed into their scent and appearance, it makes sense to me that the body would go, “Joe and Dave are detoxing, and we need a detox, so why not now? No time like the present. That way we don’t miss out on anything later.”
Or imagine nomadic tribes. Wanna be the one guy getting sick out of turn, holding everyone back?
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s definitely possible. I’ve often wondered this but I have yet to see any actual evidence supporting it beyond theories. It makes sense but I do also believe the bigger factors are environmental/nutritional.
We all go through a detox once the body requires it due to build-up/overload. For many, this is in the winter which could be influenced by the cold weather and lack of sunlight. However, there are many who will detox in the spring/summer as well. So it’s not completely related to the time of year. In the winter, we also have many who overindulge in foods, alcohol, and sweets over four consecutive holidays. This could also be a major factor in why many illnesses begin in January and why many in the same family or gatherings become ill. We all breathe the same air and we tend to eat very similarly in our own family/social groups.
I’m not sure we will ever completely understand why or how this all works. However, we can definitely say how it does not occur in the case of infectious “viruses.” There is literally no evidence of any “virus” ever being found inside a human being ever. There are many factors leading to illness, but a “virus” isn’t one. 😉
LikeLike
With the very distracting possibility of “viral transmission” eliminated it should be much easier to figure out what’s going on, but the other distracting factor of believing the disease is a bad thing must have interfered with hypothesis identification in many cases as well. Terrain theory itself doesn’t get one to “the symptoms are the healing.”
They haven’t proved women synchronize their periods either, so maybe the right study design just hasn’t come along yet. There was a recent mainstream study where they claimed transmission of flu after several days of very heavy (many hours a day) socializing between sick and well people, which is the kind of design that would be needed.
In my case, I got chicken pox at age 10 right after a kid came to school with it, then my brother who was 3 got it right as I was finishing up. Different environments, different ages, but same timing. Coincidences like that strain credulity and make me look for another explanation. Household-specific toxin exposure explains various other diseases, but flu seems too generic for that.
Plus it makes sense to me that if we have these detox programs it’d be pretty important to coordinate them with others. Tribes that didn’t should have been beat out by those that did. I think yawning is quite illustrative. Why should we yawn (and therefore feel sleepy) upon seeing someone yawn? Well there are many reasons not to be up later or asleep earlier than others in the tribe; you either miss out on group things at night and risk getting your sleep disturbed, or you risk waking others up and not getting enough sleep and/or missing things in the morning.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I definitely think you bring up interesting points. Unfortunately there don’t seem to be many studies investigating the potential for some kind of linked up detox program. It could very well be a psychological process where the detox is initiated through the mind but that doesn’t seem to hold if only a few kids get chickenpox around the same time as per your example.
I would love to see that flu study you mention. The only one I have seen was the Rosenau 1918 flu one in this article. They failed miserably every which was to transfer disease between people. I have yet to find any study showing evidence for a transfer of anything between anyone.
LikeLike
The reason I think only a few kids would get it is, there are many factors that affect whether now is a good time to do a certain type of detox or not. Only the kids who meet the criteria would “take the invitation.” The invitation being just one factor. The invitation appearing shakes the tree and ripe fruits fall, so to speak.
The study was linked here:
twitter.com/TomahawkVPhD/status/1443793006885314570?s=20&t=pWFS1yf8e4HU5qkFETL9eA
LikeLiked by 1 person
Interesting but deeply flawed study. I only did a quick read but they did not use subjects who were “naturally” infected but instead used tissue cultured “virus” to inoculate them intranasally. Most did not develop illness and positivity was based on flawed PCR and antibody tests.
“After inoculation, 4 OF 9 DONORS DEVELOPED SYMPTOMS consistent an influenza-like illness (ILI) and 7 of 9 were proven to be influenza-infected. After exposure, 4 OF 15 RECIPIENTS DEVELOPED SYMPTOMS of ILI and 3 of 15 were proven to be infected. Serum collected within 2 days of study initiation indicated that 1 donor and 3 recipients were seropositive at study initiation. After adjustment for preexposure immunity, THE OVERALL SECONDARY ATTACK RATE WAS 25% (3 of 12)”
They then admit the symptoms were not severe and that they could have been an effect of the quarantine. They also admit to a lack of coherence among the tests.
“Although the majority of recipients experienced symptoms after EE, MOST WERE NOT CLINICALLY SIGNIFICANT AND MAY RELATE TO THE EFFECT OF QUARANTINE ITSELF (eg, nasal congestion due to confinement indoors). Three of 4 recipients who had an ILI had virological evidence of infection (2 influenza, 1 rhinovirus). Although we could confirm influenza infection in 3 recipients, WE RECOGNIZE THE LACK OF COHERENCE ACROSS DIAGNOSTIC MODALITIES, particularly the fact that antibody responses to the transmitted infection WERE NOT STRONG. This likely reflects low viral loads and the mild nature of illness seen.”
They also admit experimental infection is not the same as “natural” infection:
“A major reservation about human challenge studies is WHETHER EXPERIMENTAL INFECTION CAN BE USED AS A SURROGATE FOR NATURAL (wild-type) INFLUENZA INFECTION.”
This evidence is weak and flawed.
LikeLike
That does seem very weak. Sniffles liable to be from a dusty room or whatever disinfectants they used.
I was blocked on Twitter by some virologists and it’s a complicated thread but I think there was a study of contact in socializing linked somewhere in there. Sorry, I assumed that was the one, should’ve doublechecked. Maybe there were two studies.
Seems like they always have bupkis. I’m almost on awe of how disappointing this “science” is. How do they not see it?
LikeLiked by 1 person
The cognitive dissonance is too strong. They won’t see what they don’t want to see. We’ve had plenty of “debates” with microbiologists and virologists which usually end up with them throwing out ad homenum attacks and appeals to credentials and consensus once their lack in logic is pointed out.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There seems to be an endless wall of stuff like this. A meta-analysis of 56 studies claiming to show transmission. Not sure when I’ll have time to read 56 studies, lol, but it seems like once you’ve read a few, the tricks are the same.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18230677/
LikeLiked by 1 person
Absolutely! You begin to notice a pattern and then can easily call out the deceptive tricks used. They all follow a similar recipe.
LikeLike
This study on cholera is still stumping me. I know there are people drink live cholera bacteria to prove the point that nothing happens, so I wonder what they’re doing here to make people sick.
https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/IAI.73.5.3018-3024.2005?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%20%200pubmed
My first thought is that bacteria outside the body, grown in anaerobic conditions, etc. can produce deadly poisons, such as botulism toxin. Putting that into a person is of course just poisoning, not infection.
LikeLike
I’m not sure. I’d have to look into it more. I know most cholera infections are asymptomatic, meaning the bacteria is regularly found in healthy subjects and not pathogenic. The study in question seems to be a very small sample size and it does not say how the bacteria was cultured as it was gifted. I do plan to look into bacteria more in the future but my focus has been mostly on “viruses.”
LikeLike
I guess bacteria are less urgent to tackle since they’re harder to fudge with, since they, you know, actually exist.
Two thoughts in passing:
– Bacteria do create dangerous toxins outside the body in certain circumstances, so have to ensure those toxins are no present.
– Drinking a powerful kefir will produce diarrhea temporarily in some people. I think that’s simply a gut flora settings change. Similar can happen when switching one’s drinking water, as the body adjusts to a different electrolyte balance.
– It seems nearly beyond question to me that very healthy people not eating civilizational foods (grains, sugar) have no need to fear bacterial infection (except for after premature wound sealing); the issue is whether unhealthy people ever do. I suspect not but I’m not sure. And bacterial (and yeast) issues can certainly be inconvenient, even if helpful (candida, chlamydia, etc. may just be eating excess sugar).
LikeLiked by 1 person
All very good points. And yes, bacteria do exist. They can be isolated. “Viruses” not so much. 😉
LikeLike
I found something cool. This yawning study found that yawns are more readily transmitted among people who are more socially bonded.
This further cements my theory above of why the snot-swapping experiments failed yet people do experience contagion phenomena within family, school, and workplace that are too unlikely to be a coincidence. It’s coordination of detox timing, just as yawning is coordination of sleep timing – and just like yawning, the body weights tribally closer sources more highly.
With this, the whole reason to look for “bugs” is gone. The body would be dumb not to use the coordination systems it has for coordinating the timing of risky-yet-important detoxes with the tribal in-group. This explains school, work, and familiar transmission while accounting for the failure of the “spend 5 min coughing in their face” experiments. Need more time and social bonding for it to be smart to coordinate.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00442/full
LikeLiked by 1 person
That is interesting. I will check it out. Thanks for the link! 🙂
LikeLike
I said “risky-yet-important detoxes” above, but I meant “inconvenient-yet-important.” I doubt any colds, flus, or poxes are risky if not interfered with by drugs or food. I don’t think the body is dumb. That’s the big difference in paradigm the mainstream has. They think the body does a lot of foolish things and that they know better, even though the body is solving more problems in a single second than they will in a lifetime, and more complex ones done in a masterfully efficient way.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree. The body is smart and will heal itself if given the chance. We try to run interference and disrupt a natural process. This action creates worsening disease.
LikeLike
I found an August 2020 paper in Nature with this revealing admission, as well as some others:
“To our knowledge, no experimental evidence exists to establish that the airborne transmission of influenza viruses between experimental animals, or even between humans, occurs entirely via exhaled respiratory particles, as is commonly presumed.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-17888-w
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, they have no direct evidence supporting airborne, animal-to-human, nor human-to-human transmission. They have nothing but theories based on weak indirect evidence.
LikeLike
This is what the abstract of the paper you cited ,states:
Influenza viruses are presumed, but not conclusively known, to spread among humans by several possible routes. We provide evidence of a mode of transmission seldom considered for influenza: airborne virus transport on microscopic particles called “aerosolized fomites.” In the guinea pig model of influenza virus transmission, we show that the airborne particulates produced by infected animals are mainly non-respiratory in origin. Surprisingly, we find that an uninfected, virus-immune guinea pig whose body is contaminated with influenza virus can transmit the virus through the air to a susceptible partner in a separate cage. We further demonstrate that aerosolized fomites can be generated from inanimate objects, such as by manually rubbing a paper tissue contaminated with influenza virus. Our data suggest that aerosolized fomites may contribute to influenza virus transmission in animal models of human influenza, if not among humans themselves, with important but understudied implications for public health.
LikeLike
Hi, stoked to have found this site. I heard of these experiments from Dr. Cowan, and Rosenau was the one I found on the government websites. There was another experiment where the volunteers ate and slept together with housemates and none of the housemates got sick, and the family members outside of the experiment had similar illness rates as the general population (being exposed to the experimentees didn’t have any effect on their rate of illness). I will try to find it, might have been a suggested link on the nih site?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks! I’m glad you found the site as well. 🙂 The Rosenau experiments are some of the best evidence against contagion and infectiousness. If more people knew about them, maybe we wouldn’t be in this current mess.
LikeLike
Thanks Mike . Your site is a treasure and well researched.
For me a next step is trying to also figure out Universal biology as , with our knowledge gives the best explanation that orthodox medicine has misinterpreted normal biology as disease.
——-
Interesting articles and a lot to digest as it is a totally different way of thinking
“The reasons for stringing together several symptoms to form one clinical picture are mainly due to the medical profession’s perplexity and ignorance about the true causes of diseases.
How far away orthodox medicine is from the real background of symptoms they call diseases is shown by the fact that the cause of respiratory symptoms (flu, influenza, cough, bronchitis, cold) is seen in an infection with non-existent viruses.”
——-
“Since orthodox medicine has assigned the causes of an illness to material reasons, the doctors had no choice but to make the evil pathogens (which are supposed to come from outside) responsible for most respiratory symptoms.
Even with the “zodiac diagnosis” of cancer, the causes are still sought externally. It is said to be carcinogenic substances or bad genes that are responsible for the development of tumours. “
——-
Orthodox medicine has elevated the prevailing material paradigm, with the assumption that diseases have a material cause and come from outside, to a universally valid dogma. Alternative explanatory models, which to the horror of orthodox medicine are also provable, do not stand a chance because a veritable medical industry has developed over the last 150 years. This is based on fundamental misconceptions that have developed to the chagrin of patients and to the advantage of the pharmaceutical industry and orthodox medicine. There can be no way back, as the entire economy would collapse. However, there is a way out of this dilemma via universal biology.
“ With the knowledge of biology according to Hamer, it is necessary to look closely at each symptom because each sign contains a different aspect. Since with the understanding of universal biology we not only know the cause and the course of a disease, but also why someone falls ill, a stringing together of symptoms into a disease picture loses its validity. For this reason, one can also explain why someone gets a cold and a sore throat and another only suffers from a cold. It is certainly not due to a better immune system or another claimed virus! With universal biological knowledge, it can also be scientifically proven that before most illnesses* there has always been a mental, painful shock.
* There are a few exceptions that lead to illness with a mental shock, e.g. diabetes, MS, stomach pain or high blood pressure. Accidents, poisoning, radiation and deficiency symptoms are excluded. ”
https://media2-production.mightynetworks.com/asset/39210341/Covid-19.pdf?_gl=1*1u16pp5*_ga*MTIzMTkzOTQ4OC4xNjI1NzM1OTcw*_ga_T49FMYQ9FZ*MTY1MjAxMTMyMy45MzEuMS4xNjUyMDEyNDg1LjA.
——-
https://media2-production.mightynetworks.com/asset/39209073/The_different_forms_of_pneumonia_-_explained_with_the_knowledge_of_universal_bio.pdf?_gl=1*5ez0ih*_ga*MTIzMTkzOTQ4OC4xNjI1NzM1OTcw*_ga_T49FMYQ9FZ*MTY1MjAxMTMyMy45MzEuMS4xNjUyMDEyNDg1LjA.
LikeLike
Thanks for the kind words and support PC! I greatly appreciate it. 🙂
LikeLike
I thought the causative agent of SpanishFlu was a bacterium or is that is seen after a bout of the flu at the final stages of the illness?
Or does the “virus” morph into a bacterium?
LikeLike
There was no bacterium ever found responsible for the Spanish flu. It was assumed to be caused by a “virus.” There may have been issues with bacteria during the Spanish flu yet bacteria were never the cause. Bacteria are not the cause of any disease. They are the clean-up crew.
LikeLike
I’ve been reading trough the comments and I think the influence of vitamins and minerals could use some attention. The way I see it after reading quite a bit about the subject. What makes you sick is toxemia. Aka a build up of toxins in the body too much for the normal detox systems to handle (peeing and pooping). But why can the system handle it in some people but not in others even if those people have no significant difference in toxemia inducing factors (toxic food additives, pesticide remains, pollution etc). Well I think here (usually) the lack of certain vitamins/minerals comes in. If the cause of scurvy hadn’t been known as vitamin C deficiency I bet it would generally been considered a viral infection today. Influenza (seasonal) is likely most directly related to vitamin D. That said I don’t think it’s a good idea to focus on one particular vitamin/mineral.
In that regard I think it would be great if people visiting the doctor because they feel sick are (as what should be the standard) tested for toxins and their vitamin/mineral situation. So that any prescription is first and foremost geared towards removing toxins and restoring deficiencies. In most cases the latter would probably be enough to let the body deal with it naturally.
LikeLike
This is stupid.
Anyone who has kids can see infectiousness of disease. And some people are immune to this. My wife being one of them.
Perhaps it’s fairies that make ye sick, aye?
LikeLike
Your name is “You are stupid.” Am I supposed to address you as such?
You are Stupid, please comment specifically about what you disagree with pertaining to the article.
LikeLike
Folks like YaS are planted by the contagions known as Big Pharma, Government, and Phake Phood groups. As is typical of most blogs and sites. Which is why I always igonre and never debate or question them. Their intent is never to be open-mided and likely (IMO) are actually satanic prawns of evil or evil incarnate itself. They have no intent or affect on the Devleopment of Civilization and their days are numbered by materialistic events (i.e. time and space). They are incapable of rational Truths. You, MIKE STONE< are so vlaaible in your pursuits (to Humanity) that these klowns should not distract you/us for any second.
LikeLiked by 1 person
As a parent this is concerning. Do I need special glasses to see infectiousness? And how do I test or prove who’s immune or not? Do I just point and declare, or have actual scientific experiments been done that prove these theories?
LikeLike
Some relevance and explains some of the so called ‘epidemics’.
“The reason why the people die in the so called ‘epidemic’s’ after WWI there was a big epidemic is because food was scarce , they had no nutrition, they were malnourished.
When you have this kind of a healing phase going on, our bodies need proteins. In those days proteins were scarce. Most people had to become vegan or vegetarian, they ate one meal a day if they were lucky after WW I , in Europe at least.
It is this horrific situations that people have to deal with.”
A long but good interview.Links to interview and few takeaways
https://media2-production.mightynetworks.com/asset/47019999/Brizer_s_featured_guests___Ilsedora_Laker_and_James_McCumiskey..pdf?_gl=1*pi3ihu*_ga*MTIzMTkzOTQ4OC4xNjI1NzM1OTcw*_ga_T49FMYQ9FZ*MTY2NjAxNDkwMC4xMzY1LjEuMTY2NjAxNDkyNC4wLjAuMA..
LikeLiked by 1 person
https://ln2.sync.com/dl/472844160/m78e6ca4-haazcn2w-rtjjj4bt-enydpf8a/view/default/3858447200010
A longish interesting interview on GNM..( on flu at around 1 min 24j
At minute 1 hr 48 min on Spanish Flu. (P’ biological conflict , fear of death for oneself, for a loved one, use of mustard gas.
Interesting that hardly any mention of it even in alternative media who blame the vaccines, aspirin, etc.
“The most commonly used gas in WWI was ‘mustard gas’ [bis(2-chloroethyl) sulfide]. In pure liquid form this is colorless, but in WWI impure forms were used, which had a mustard color with an odor reminiscent of garlic or horseradish. An irritant and a strong vesicant (blister-forming agent), it causes chemical burns on contact, with blisters oozing yellow fluid. Initial exposure is symptomless, and by the time skin irritation begins, it is too late to take preventative measures. The mortality rate from mustard gas was only 2-3%, but those who suffered chemical burns and respiratory problems had long hospitalizations and if they recovered were thought to be at higher risk of developing cancers during later life.”
(https://www.kumc.edu/school-of-medicine/academics/departments/history-and-philosophy-of-medicine/archives/wwi/essays/medicine/gas-in-the-great-war.html)
“The physical effects of gas were agonising and it remained a pervasive psychological weapon. Although only 3 per cent of gas casualties proved immediately fatal, hundreds of thousands of ex-soldiers continued to suffer for years after the war.”
https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/how-gas-became-a-terror-weapon-in-the-first-world-war
“If sulfur mustard is released into the air as a vapor, people can be exposed through skin contact, eye contact, or breathing. Sulfur mustard vapor can be carried long distances by wind.
“ • Typically, signs and symptoms do not occur immediately. Depending on the severity of the exposure, symptoms may not occur for up to 24 hours. Some people are more sensitive to sulfur mustard than are other people, and may have signs and symptoms sooner.
• Sulfur mustard can have the following effects on specific parts of the body:
◦ Skin: redness and itching of the skin may occur 2 to 48 hours after exposure and may eventually change to yellow blistering of the skin.
◦ Eyes: irritation, pain, swelling, and tearing may occur within 3 to 12 hours of a mild to moderate exposure. A severe exposure may cause signs and symptoms within 1 to 2 hours and may include the symptoms of a mild or moderate exposure plus light sensitivity, severe pain, or blindness lasting up to 10 days.
◦ Respiratory tract: runny nose, sneezing, hoarseness, bloody nose, sinus pain, shortness of breath, and cough within 12 to 24 hours of a mild exposure and within 2 to 4 hours of a severe exposure.
◦ Digestive tract: abdominal pain, diarrhea, fever, nausea, and vomiting.
◦ Bone marrow: decreased formation of blood cells (aplastic anemia) or decreased red or white blood cells and platelets (pancytopenia) leading to weakness, bleeding and infections.”
Extensive breathing in of the vapors can cause chronic respiratory disease, repeated respiratory infections, or death.”
https://emergency.cdc.gov/agent/sulfurmustard/basics/facts.asp
LikeLiked by 1 person
My bit of input is that our Creator designed the human race to enjoy His peace and NOT to endure stress. Stress resulted from rebellion and sin. The acute stress generated by WW1 led to an unprecedented number of ‘flu-related deaths. Consequently a few individuals attempted to recreate acute stress in 2020 to 2022 comparable to that of WW1, the purpose of which was to reduce the population and to implement draconic control measures.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Can you review Ignaz Sammelweis famous paper? it is free on google. Also this study “Aerial dissemination of pulmonary tuberculosis. A two-year study of contagion in a tuberculosis ward. 1959”. Copy past DOI into sci hub to get the free full article.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks! I will look into it.
LikeLike
Thanks for the sci hub DOI way of reading these papers, I have been wondering what the trick is. I skimmed the paper, the built in bias is painful to read, they don’t even mention or consider alternatives to their presumptions. Looks like no controls were performed…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes. I actually think the doctor R L RIley had good intentions but I don’t think the experiment has never been replicated or at least not replicated by scientists outside his team so even if they found something real one study is not enough to make a decision on.
Samuelweisz study is called “Etiology, Concept and Prophylaxis of Childbed Fever”
A book that you might be interested in: Harvard Hospital and Its Volunteers: Story of the Common Cold Research Unit
Keith R. Thompson. it is on abe books second hand but not free online like most books are on library genesis, google or internet archive so I have never read it. There were another 1-2 books that had the history of the common cold unit that were not free online but on abe book.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Agreed. I read a little of the Samuelweisz, what jumped out at me was that at the same fifthly hospital the midwives had mortality of 2% while the guys on the other floor who also did autopsies (with toxic chemicals?) had mortality of 18%. After he had the guys wash they claim the mortality went down to 1%, moral of the story stay out the hospital and leave childbirth to the midwives.
LikeLiked by 1 person